You are asking a valid question. It is legitimate to ask if evolution is treated differently that the rest of science. What I'll show here is that, if you read a bit about the general history of science (such as the concepts of atoms, or gravity, or light), that concepts like evolution is treated no differently. It is every bit just as falsifiable!

Here are the examples:

I asked for two specific things. None of your "examples" is an hypothesis, and with no hypothesis it's rather hard to argue that there's anything to falsify. Thus none of them are valid experiments from the get-go, in respect to my second question.

Yeah right.. secretsauce is my idol and my proctor.. I have a permission..

I asked for two specific things. None of your "examples" is an hypothesis, and with no hypothesis it's rather hard to argue that there's anything to falsify. Thus none of them are valid experiments from the get-go, in respect to my second question.

You are asking about an hypothesis which is an explanation without evidence... or rather explanation which are not been check for the accordance of natural law.. Am i right?

Here we go.

1. State an experimentally testable and falsifiable hypothesis that says all life as we know it evolved from whatever you claim the original source was.2. Show where even one such experiment has been conducted which had the potential to falsify the hypothesis.

I maintain these two simple, elementary things cannot and have not been done. Until they are done, people have no business pretending otherwise.

An experiment made by Louis Pasteur about spontaneous generation..

It has neither been proved possible nor impossible.

What Pasteur showed is that complex life (like flies or mice) cannot come from non-life Ã¢â‚¬Å“ in a matter of weeks Ã¢â‚¬Å“.

Pasteur's experiments did Ã¢â‚¬Å“ NOT Ã¢â‚¬Å“ show (much less prove) that simple life (like early one-celled organisms) cannot come from non-life in a matter of Ã¢â‚¬Å“ a billion years Ã¢â‚¬Å“.

HUGE differences:

1. TIME ... Pasteur's experiment took place over a matter of days, or at most weeks. As for life on earth, we know that the earliest possible traces of life are about 3.5 billion years old, and the earth itself is about 4.6 billion years old ... so that's about 1 Ã¢â‚¬Å“ billion Ã¢â‚¬Å“ years in which life started.

2. Complexity ... the "spontaneous generation" that Pasteur disproved was the generation of life forms like flies and mice ... which are modern organisms, and Ã¢â‚¬Å“ much Ã¢â‚¬Å“ more complex than the earliest life forms on earth ... simple one-celled organisms that make modern bacteria look complex!. We already know that it took another 2.5 Ã¢â‚¬Å“ billion Ã¢â‚¬Å“ years for single-celled organisms to evolve into multicellular organisms and many more millions of years after that for flies and mice to evolve.

3. Size of environment ... Pasteur's experiments was limited to a few jars or flasks. Life on earth emerged in the equivalent of an experiment going on simultaneously in *all the oceans on the planet* ... a bit larger than a flask.

As for whether in Ã¢â‚¬Å“ can Ã¢â‚¬Å“ be done ... this has not been achieved ... yet. But the biochemists have been able to show two things:(A.) Complex organic molecules can indeed form spontaneously from simpler molecules given the right ingredients and energy sources; and(B.) RNA molecules can sustain self-replication using only a small number of nucleotides. This means that the complexity of the target that needs to be reproduced is much smaller than expected.

So ...We would be lying if we said that it has been proven possible.

But anyone who says it has been proven impossible is also lying (or ignorant)..

You are asking about an hypothesis which is an explanation without evidence... or rather explanation which are not been check for the accordance of natural law.. Am i right?

Do you have any hypothesis to offer?

I find it odd that at this late time you seem to be asking what an hypothesis is, considering how you lecture at length about what you think a "theory" is, and the two concepts are so very closely related.

I find it odd that at this late time you seem to be asking what an hypothesis is, considering how you lecture at length about what you think a "theory" is, and the two concepts are so very closely related.

Just asking.. To make sure that I am not viewing wrong..

I didn't have an hypothesis yet, unlike before when I had been studying Science in school and had an experiments..

2. Complexity ... the "spontaneous generation" that Pasteur disproved was the generation of life forms like flies and mice ... which are modern organisms, and Ã¢â‚¬Å“ much Ã¢â‚¬Å“ more complex than the earliest life forms on earth ... simple one-celled organisms that make modern bacteria look complex!. We already know that it took another 2.5 Ã¢â‚¬Å“ billion Ã¢â‚¬Å“ years for single-celled organisms to evolve into multicellular organisms and many more millions of years after that for flies and mice to evolve.

The cop out story again?They can't get around the fact that genes,proteins,dna,etc. are all too highly complex,so they try to shrink the problem into primitive catagories.

Perhaps you don't realize that it only makes the problem worse,if the first life was so primitive it would be very easy to duplicate.We can put a man on the moon,cure some forms of cancer,harness the energy of the atom,but we can't reprodue something so simple and primitive?

The cop out story again?They can't get around the fact that genes,proteins,dna,etc. are all too highly complex,so they try to shrink the problem into primitive catagories.

Perhaps you don't realize that it only makes the problem worse,if the first life was so primitive it would be very easy to duplicate.We can put a man on the moon,cure some forms of cancer,harness the energy of the atom,but we can't reprodue something so simple and primitive?

In this manner, you are saying that we are the one who can't reproduce something and primitive.. Of course.. We can't but the species (including ourselves) can evolve and make a bush (branch)..

Just like this:

-Dobzhansky and Pavlosky witnessed the evolution of fruit flies descended from a single individual between 1958 and 1963 resulting in a new species (no longer able to interbreed with the parent species).

-Scientists in Japan have discovered a new strain of bacteria in a waste pond near a factory that has developed the ability to digest " nylon ". Since nylon didn't even exist before humans invented it in 1935, this is evidence of evolution of a new trait that could not have existed before (a new enzyme for digesting a polymer that didn't exist before).

Now, I know you are thinking "that's not evolution, its microevolution." You are demanding that we come up with a dinosaur becoming a bird, or a reptile becoming a mammal ... something that you "know" takes time longer than a human lifespan. That's not science ... that's playing a childish game of 'gotcha.'

It is childish because it ignores how we witness "ALL" things ... and says that science can only study things that are shorter than a human lifespan! Have you (or anyone) ever witnessed an acorn growing into a fully grown oak tree? Of course you haven't. Nobody has. Because that process can take 300 to 600 years, Does that mean that we cannot be sure that oak trees come from acorns? Of course not. We can see the stages within a human life span (an acorn growing to a sapling, a sapling growing to a small oak tree, a small oak tree growing into a larger one) within an observable lifespan, and from that we " know " that acorn-to-oak development occurs. That is " EXACTLY " the same process used to 'witness' how glaciers move, how beaches form, how continents drift, how mountains emerge, how stars are born ... and yes, how evolution occurs. To deny that is to deny pretty much " ALL " of science.

And where are you getting this 2.5 billion years from?Thanks.

Fossils, providing evolution of organic evolution, have been deposited over a large stretch of the geological time scale. They provide a representation of the changing communities of living organisms, and change there has undoubtedly been..

Oh! I forgot to add:

Nice touch, pasting de_skudd's words in the middle of that other stuff. Really adds to the overall effect. Or affect. I forget which is more appropriate.

I don't get what are you implying for this..

Is this an another technique used by you ( creationists ) ... insisting that evolution should have a certain result (without any logical reason for it) and then faulting evolution for not producing such a result. They are not debating the actual theory of evolution ... but inventing a nonsensical straw man version of the theory of evolution, and then refuting " their own nonsensical theory " ?

Don't be so modest. You broke up that piece from yahoo, inserting a quote from de_skudd. I don't know if I would've ever thought to do that. Either this art is not new to you, or you have some remarkable natural ability.

Is this an another technique used by you ( creationists ) ... insisting that evolution should have a certain result (without any logical reason for it) and then faulting evolution for not producing such a result. They are not debating the actual theory of evolution ... but inventing a nonsensical straw man version of the theory of evolution, and then refuting " their own nonsensical theory " ?

Perhaps you could direct me to someone who knows how to state the beliefs of evolutionists in a form that is consistent with being a scientific theory? If I had access to such, it would be very easy to reference it, and distinguish it from any sort of straw man. I could figure out what is logical to derive from the real, genuine "theory of evolution", and what is not.

As a bonus, if you ever find the "theory" properly stated, I'll bet you'll discover an hypothesis very close by.

Of course.. We can't but the species (including ourselves) can evolve and make a bush (branch)

Ofcourse because were pre-existing and posses the pre-programmed ability to adapt.That is'nt a very good explanation of how the first life came from non-life.

-Dobzhansky and Pavlosky witnessed the evolution of fruit flies descended from a single individual between 1958 and 1963 resulting in a new species (no longer able to interbreed with the parent species).

-Scientists in Japan have discovered a new strain of bacteria in a waste pond near a factory that has developed the ability to digest " nylon ". Since nylon didn't even exist before humans invented it in 1935, this is evidence of evolution of a new trait that could not have existed before (a new enzyme for digesting a polymer that didn't exist before).

Now, I know you are thinking "that's not evolution, its microevolution." You are demanding that we come up with a dinosaur becoming a bird, or a reptile becoming a mammal ... something that you "know" takes time longer than a human lifespan. That's not science ... that's playing a childish game of 'gotcha.'

Actualy what I was thinking is a little more sophisticated than that,we have to look at more than just one single line of evidence.There is nothing in the fossil record that is half-way between a fly or a bacteria,they are completely different created kinds until there is a verifiable line of progression.

Secondly,if your timeline of billions of years is true,do you even know how long ago flies show up in the fossil record?The earliest known fly is 400 million years old and in all that time you only have one verifiable example of speciation.

Don't be so modest. You broke up that piece from yahoo, inserting a quote from de_skudd. I don't know if I would've ever thought to do that. Either this art is not new to you, or you have some remarkable natural ability.Perhaps you could direct me to someone who knows how to state the beliefs of evolutionists in a form that is consistent with being a scientific theory? If I had access to such, it would be very easy to reference it, and distinguish it from any sort of straw man. I could figure out what is logical to derive from the real, genuine "theory of evolution", and what is not.

As a bonus, if you ever find the "theory" properly stated, I'll bet you'll discover an hypothesis very close by.

You and I before thought that it is not a problem? How about now?

Actually, I invited secretsauce to join this forum but as he saw the title of the webpage (evolutionfairytale) . he didn't continue, why? it is already biased.. why need to argue? just like im experiencing now..

Yes because we can't create anything out of nothing.. We are not God..

Ofcourse because were pre-existing and posses the pre-programmed ability to adapt.That is'nt a very good explanation of how the first life came from non-life.Actualy what I was thinking is a little more sophisticated than that,we have to look at more than just one single line of evidence.There is nothing in the fossil record that is half-way between a fly or a bacteria,they are completely different created kinds until there is a verifiable line of progression.

Is the "nylon" pre-existed before? The DNA illustrated that we all came from single ancestry..

Secondly,if your timeline of billions of years is true,do you even know how long ago flies show up in the fossil record?The earliest known fly is 400 million years old and in all that time you only have one verifiable example of speciation.

In Biology, this "change over time" is given a more precise definition, so that we can measure when it occurs. We say that it is "change of a species over generations" ... (or in more technical terms, "change in the allele frequencies of a population over time."). But either way, it is just "change over time."

So once you understand that, then it is clear that evolution indeed is a fact... and a theory

No, this is not true. It is also a forum violation and my number one pet peeve. This from the Forum FAQ:

What is evolution? Ã¢â‚¬â€œ When the word evolution is used in this forum, it can refer to chemical, cosmic, or biological evolution. By chemical evolution, we mean either the origin of the elements, or abiogenesis (life from non-life). By cosmic evolution we mean the origin of the universe, galaxies, stars, planets, etc. By biological evolution, we mean the origin of species from a common ancestor (all life from a single cell). We do not debate small-scale change and adaptation (termed micro-evolution by evolutionists), on this forum since both sides agree it occurs.It is intellectually dishonest to claim that since micro-evolution is true, then large-scale, molecules-to-man evolution must also be true, or the canard that evolution is simply a shift in allele frequencies (even my college Biology book refrains from using this as a global definition of evolution, but instead refers to this as micro-evolution[1]). An example that occurred on this forum was the fallacious claim that "Domesticated animals are a perfectly valid example of evolution at work." Anyone who continues to use such equivocal arguments for evolution after being referred to this FAQ will be banned from the forum. For more on this equivocation, see my article The Evolution Definition Shell Game.

IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m not calling you intellectually dishonest, IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m calling your claim intellectually dishonest. If after some time of pondering the above, and you still hold to what you wrote, then you personally are being intellectually dishonest and you would be best served to move on.

A Science is Understanding Before Belief while Religion is Belief before Understanding..

See, hereÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s where youÃ¢â‚¬â„¢re confusing the issueÃ¢â‚¬Â¦. No one said Ã¢â‚¬Å“Science is a religionÃ¢â‚¬ÂÃ¢â‚¬Â¦ And since (macro) evolution isnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t science (empirical or otherwise), you are either intentionally infusing evolution into science, or inadvertently following the whims of those who canÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t accept God (and/or metaphysics) as part of the equation. So they have invented a religion of their own, and their disciples will come to sites like this to defend (and hopefully convert others to) their religion of evolution. And no doubt youÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ll prove my point in your rebuttal of this post. So hereÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s a syllogism for you to work on in the meantime:

Major Premise: Science is observable, testable and capable of proof or disproof.

No. And I've never seen an atom split in half but I'm not about to stick my head in a nuclear reactor because I don't believe in atomic theory.

You cannot even observe the changes from chimp to man which is a much smaller change. And because of that, you also cannot show the process that would prove we have a common ancestor, now can you?

So what are we to do about things like the fusion of chromosomes 2 & 3 of our nearest genetic relative to form our 2nd chromosomes ?

Then you might say: Well it's only a 1-3% difference, so why can't we be ancestors? I might believe that if the actual numbers were revealed, instead of selling everyone on the percent. 1-3% equal 3,000,000 - 9,,000,000 (3-9 million) differences. Not giving the actual numbers means you guys have something to hide. Why else would you not list this that would make the hidden truth viable? It's not like the average person can't do basic math.

What do you mean not giving the numbers? You just quoted those numbers to me.

You mean you don't agree with a person who teaches evolutions and claims: Given enough time, anything can evolve into anything?

That's right. I do not agree with that statement.

Quote: She's entitled to hold any opinion she feels like as long as she has something to back it up with.

Putting rules to free thinking is not free thinking. It's controlled because the rule exists.

I actually take that back. I think I could have phrased that a lot better.

So Judy can belong to your peer group as long as she has something to back up what you two may disagree on.

No. Judy may be an atheist if she doesn't believe in gods. If she did believe in gods then she wouldn't be an atheist.

Is the idea that a peer would actually disagree, is what makes it wrong?

No, having a view that is in direct opposition to reality would be what makes it wrong.

Or that one person might start a new idea that would eventually alter the majority view, is what makes it wrong?

So by justifying it, you have no problem with how the clubs work that represent what you believe?

I don't think that those clubs represent atheism. I think they are clubs with atheist members.

But if a club is not a good representation of the group as a whole, but yet no one says anything. Then that is approving of their actions by being silent. Are people afraid to go up against the majority to correct a wrong? Or is the wrong actually right, and the main reason no one from your group objects to their actions?

Why would anyone say anything? Do these clubs represent the majority? Do you think that clubs like The Rational Response Squad speak for all atheists?

Why would anyone say anything? Do these clubs represent the majority? Do you think that clubs like The Rational Response Squad speak for all atheists?

These clubs do not speak for all atheist. The actions of everyone in a certain group cannot be attributed to all outside the group, but the clubs mindset represents the majority of atheist views. Thats just a fact.

The actions of everyone in a certain group cannot be attributed to all outside the group

Yes, with you there. People in the atheist group don't believe in gods. People that aren't in the atheist group can't have that lack of belief attributed to them, or they would be atheists.

, but the clubs mindset represents the majority of atheist views. Thats just a fact.

The majority of atheist views? There is only one thing that makes an atheist an atheist. That defining thing is a lack of belief in gods. That's what makes an atheist a member of the group defined as atheists.

The majority of atheist views? There is only one thing that makes an atheist an atheist. That defining thing is a lack of belief in gods. That's what makes an atheist a member of the group defined as atheists.

Hey Jason,

Would you mind starting a thread defining your beliefs? I won't force the issue but consider it.

I know that atheists seemingly are like herding cats beyond their disbelief. Atheists generally have a strong belief in evolution beyond their initial disbelief in God but beyond that you have, humanists, communists, nihilists, anarchists, socialists, and shrug-the-shoulderists.

You don't seem like a shrug-the-shoulderist and on top of that you are refreshingly patient and truly rational for an atheist. (This is the main reason I don't think you'll be in the atheist camp for long as long as you keep making so much sense. )

So what say you? Are you a willing victim to really be scrutinized for your actual beliefs beyond your disbelief?

Adam

PS - I want to make a side note. As much as atheists claim to be so independently minded the trend of certain schools of thought are self-evident for anyone who spends a fair amount of time engaging vocal atheists. Just my observation and opinion.